(Civil Appeal No. 7091 of 2025), delivered on 22 May 2025.
2025 7 SCR 79
The case addressed whether the appellant, Pinky Meena, was wrongly discharged from her service as a Civil Judge.
Background of the Case
Pinky Meena, holding degrees including B.A., B.Ed., LL.B., and LL.M., had previously served as a Teacher Grade–II in the Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, from December 20141. She successfully applied for the post of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, was selected, and joined as a trainee in March 201912. She successfully completed her one-year induction training by March 202023. However, her posting order was awaited, and subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to her in February 2020, followed by a discharge order in May 20202. The High Court dismissed her writ petition challenging these orders4.
Allegations Against Pinky Meena
The show cause notice sought explanations on five main points5…:
• Simultaneous Degrees: Allegedly obtained LL.B. and B.Ed. degrees in the same year, implying fraudulent attendance [471a].
• LL.M. while in Service: Pursued an LL.M. degree as a regular student while serving as a government teacher, again with an accusation of fraudulent attendance [471b].
• Concealment of Past Employment: Failed to disclose her prior government service as a teacher in the interview checklist for RJS [472c].
• No Objection Certificate (NOC): Did not obtain permission or an NOC from the Education Department to appear for the RJS Examination [473d].
• Concealment of Resignation and Joining RJS: Allegedly concealed her selection in RJS from the High Court and Education Department, and joined judicial services after resigning on medical grounds [473e].
Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and quashing the show cause notice and discharge order8. The Court’s reasoning was based on several key points:
1. Non-disclosure of Past Government Service: The Court found that the appellant had submitted her resignation from her teaching post on 25 October 2018, before her interview for the Civil Judge position on 02 November 2018910. Therefore, she was no longer a government servant at the time of the interview. The Court stated that this omission was not a “material irregularity or a serious misconduct” that warranted her discharge, especially since she had successfully completed her training without any blemish10…. It was also not a case of suppressing criminal antecedents10.
2. Misconduct related to Degrees (LL.B., B.Ed., LL.M.): The Court noted that any alleged misconduct pertaining to obtaining these degrees simultaneously or while in service as a teacher occurred prior to her appointment as a Judicial Officer9…. As the Education Department (her former employer) had not taken any action regarding these matters, they could not form a valid basis for discharging her from judicial service13.
3. Termination of a Probationer:
◦ The Court highlighted that the appellant’s performance during her probation period was not unsatisfactory12.
◦ A termination from service, if it carries a stigma and is based on misconduct, requires a proper inquiry, unlike a “termination simpliciter” for unsuitability14….
◦ The discharge order was considered stigmatic because it was based on an inquiry report finding her guilty of misconduct. The Court found that the inquiry was conducted without giving the appellant an effective opportunity to be heard, thus violating principles of natural justice16….
◦ The Court emphasised that in such cases, courts must look at the “substance of the matter and not the form” to determine if the termination was punitive19.
4. Broader Implications: The Court also emphasised the importance of greater participation of women in the judiciary and acknowledged the appellant’s perseverance in overcoming societal stigmas and achieving her educational qualifications20….
Outcome:
The Supreme Court ordered the appellant’s reinstatement in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, including fixation of seniority and notional pay, but excluding back wages. She is to be treated as having successfully completed her probation and as a confirmed employee811.
